Case Framing with Mark Mandell
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Monday, July 3, 2017
Monday, May 29, 2017
Group Decisions May Suffer If Confidence, Expertise Don’t Match
Group Decisions May Suffer If Confidence, Expertise Don’t Match: New research suggests, that when trying to make a decision with another person, people tend to match their confidence levels — which can backfire if one person in fact has more expertise than the other. University College London (UCL) researchers found that that the degree of stated confidence in one's opinion is infectious when working in a team. However, an individual’s confidence in their opinion implies credibility which may or may not be accurate. The study, published in Nature Human Behaviour, shows that the degree of stated confidence can blur the boundary between well-informed and poorly informed opinion, sometimes to the detriment of group decision-making. 'Making a decision collectively is most effective if the person with the most expertise expresses their opinion with the most confidence. If my opinion is more reliable than yours, then I should also be more confident. 'But it's difficult to express that effectively if you don't know whether the person you're working with is
Sunday, May 28, 2017
You’re Not Going to Change Your Mind
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/opinion/sunday/youre-not-going-to-change-your-mind.html?ref=opinion
The authors distinguish between the tendency for people to prefer confirming and desirable over disconfirming and undesirable information (Eil & Rao, 2011). Thus, people prefer evidence confirming what they need to believe to maintain a positive self-image. Jurors are motivated reasoners who prefer evidence that reinforces what they need to believe to preserve their views of themselves and the world. A lawyer can never win a case unless a narrative speaks to jurors about a world they know.
The authors distinguish between the tendency for people to prefer confirming and desirable over disconfirming and undesirable information (Eil & Rao, 2011). Thus, people prefer evidence confirming what they need to believe to maintain a positive self-image. Jurors are motivated reasoners who prefer evidence that reinforces what they need to believe to preserve their views of themselves and the world. A lawyer can never win a case unless a narrative speaks to jurors about a world they know.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Innocent until Primed: Mock Jurors’ Racially Biased Response to the Presumption of Innocence
Those responsible for justice system must be educated about jury and juror judgment and decision making. Unfortunately, the rational juror model seems be the bedrock of criminal and civil justice system, all too often to the detriment of those that depend on the fairnees of the system.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092365
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092365
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
February 28, 2014 - March 1, 2014
Hotel Valley Ho
Scottsdale, AZ
Hotel Valley Ho
Scottsdale, AZ
Take the Next Step in Your Practice with Case Framing
The “next step” seminar offers a new and innovative Case Framing paradigm that has been developed by renowned trial lawyer Mark Mandell. The paradigm is premised on the fundamental importance framing has to persuasion and to obtaining a just verdict. Learn how to identify your overall case frame and also how to frame each and every aspect of your case.
Join Mark Mandell and a faculty of other experienced trial lawyers at AAJ Education’s Next Step Seminar: The Newest Innovations in Case Framing on February 28–March 1, 2014 in Scottsdale, AZ, where you’ll learn how to incorporate case framing into your litigation strategy. Mandell and his colleagues will teach you how to build your case from the ground up with focus groups and case framing techniques, how to use the latest research in decision science and psychology to structure your case and how to frame each and every part of your trial.
Submit your case for consideration during breakout sessions and benefit from individualized instruction from experienced faculty members!
- Learn how to analyze your client’s case with a critical eye and identify the core issues, those issues Mandell calls the “I just can’t get over” issues of your case.
- Learn how to create “echoes” of these issues that will reverberate throughout trial.
- Understand the latest innovations in case framing and how to apply them to your pending cases.
- Learn practical strategies during interactive exercises.
Open only to AAJ Plaintiff Members (Regular, Life, Sustaining, President’s Club, and Leaders Forum) and AAJ Paralegal Affiliates.
Your Registration Includes
- 13.75 hours of continuing legal education credit, and NCA credits, which can be applied towards the American Association for Justice's professional recognition programs
- Comprehensive reference materials provided on a USB drive
- Complimentary daily contintental breakfast and coffee
- Networking lunch
- Networking reception
Undecided?Call us. We'll provide you with names and phone numbers of previous attendees of AAJ Education programs who will be pleased to answer your questions. Or, if you prefer to speak with a course advisor or faculty member, we will arrange that as well. Call 800.622.1791 or 202.965.3500, extension 8612.
Housing AAJ has a limited number of rooms available at the Hotel Valley Ho at a special group rate of $209 per night for single or double occupancy, plus 13.92% state and and city taxes, a $10.00 per reservation bellman gratuity fee, and a $3.00 per night housekeeping fee. The cut-off date for this group rate is February 6, 2014. Reservations are subject to availability. For changes or cancellations to your reservation, please contact the hotel directly. Cancellations made within 48 hours of the arrival date will be assessed a one-night room and tax penalty charge. Additional charges apply for triple or quadruple occupancy.
To reserve, please contact the Hotel Valley Ho at 1-800-882-4484 or e-mailreservations@hotelvalleyho.com and ask for the American Association for Justice group rate.
Hotel Valley Ho
6850 East Main Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
(480) 248-2000
Reservations: 1-800-882-4484
6850 East Main Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
(480) 248-2000
Reservations: 1-800-882-4484
Cancellation PolicyCancellations received in writing by February 10, 2014 will result in a refund less a 10% administrative charge. Cancellations received February 11 - February 26, 2014 will result in a voucher for the entire registration fee, which may be applied toward any AAJ Education college or seminar held within one calendar year of the date of issue. Requests for refunds or vouchers received after February 26, 2014 will not be honored. Fax or email your cancellation letter to the registrar at 202-625-7084 or education@justice.org.
Special AssistanceAAJ Education will make every effort to ensure that its meetings are held in facilities that are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend our program and need special facilities or assistance relating to a disability, please call 800-622-1791 or 202-965-3500, ext. 8612.
Contribute to the AAJ Education FundPlease consider a donation to the AAJ Education Fund 501(c)(3). Contributions support educational programs and activities to preserve and protect the civil justice system.
Learn more »
Learn more »
Monday, February 25, 2013
Monday, June 18, 2012
Ethics opinion on using social media during trial.
The New York City Bar Association issued a an ethics opinion about the use of the social media sites of jurors. This is an important topic in this digital age for anyone trying cases..
Formal Opinion 2012-02
Formal Opinion 2012-02
Friday, June 15, 2012
Interesting research
Reconstruing Intolerance
Abstract Thinking Reduces Conservatives’ Prejudice Against Nonnormative Groups
+Author Affiliations
- Jamie B. Luguri, Department of Psychology, Yale University, P. O. Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520-8205 E-mail: jamie.luguri@yale.edu
Abstract
Myrdal (1944) described the “American dilemma” as the conflict between abstract national values (“liberty and justice for all”) and more concrete, everyday prejudices. We leveraged construal-level theory to empirically test Myrdal’s proposition that construal level (abstract vs. concrete) can influence prejudice. We measured individual differences in construal level (Study 1) and manipulated construal level (Studies 2 and 3); across these three studies, we found that adopting an abstract mind-set heightened conservatives’ tolerance for groups that are perceived as deviating from Judeo-Christian values (gay men, lesbians, Muslims, and atheists). Among participants who adopted a concrete mind-set, conservatives were less tolerant of these nonnormative groups than liberals were, but political orientation did not have a reliable effect on tolerance among participants who adopted an abstract mind-set. Attitudes toward racial out-groups and dominant groups (e.g., Whites, Christians) were unaffected by construal level. In Study 3, we found that the effect of abstract thinking on prejudice was mediated by an increase in concerns about fairness
Interesting Article
A Choice Mind-Set Increases the
Acceptance and Maintenance of
Wealth Inequality
Krishna Savani1 and Aneeta Rattan2
1Management Division, Columbia Business School, and 2Department of Psychology, Stanford University
Abstract
Krishna Savani1 and Aneeta Rattan2
1Management Division, Columbia Business School, and 2Department of Psychology, Stanford University
Abstract
Psychological Science
XX(X) 1–9
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797611434540 http://pss.sagepub.com
XX(X) 1–9
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797611434540 http://pss.sagepub.com
Wealth inequality has significant psychological, physiological, societal, and economic costs. In six experiments, we investigated
how seemingly innocuous, culturally pervasive ideas can help maintain and further wealth inequality. Specifically, we tested
whether the concept of choice, which is deeply valued in American society, leads Americans to act in ways that perpetuate
wealth inequality. Thinking in terms of choice, we argue, activates the belief that life outcomes stem from personal agency,
not societal factors, and thereby leads people to justify wealth inequality. The results showed that highlighting the concept of
choice makes people less disturbed by facts about existing wealth inequality in the United States, more likely to underestimate
the role of societal factors in individuals’ successes, less likely to support the redistribution of educational resources, and less
likely to support raising taxes on the rich—even if doing so would help resolve a budget deficit crisis. These findings indicate
that the culturally valued concept of choice contributes to the maintenance of wealth inequality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)